5.  The first applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Petah Tikva, Israel. The second applicant, the daughter of the first applicant, was born in 2001. She currently lives in Romania.
6.  The first applicant and his wife, both Romanian and Israeli citizens, have had their permanent residence in Israel since 1997. Their child Iris was born there, in 2001, and acquired Israeli citizenship from birth.
7.  In September 2001, the family visited Romania. On 11 October 2001, the date scheduled for the return of the family to Israel, only the first applicant left, while the wife and the second applicant remained in Romania.
Subsequently, the first applicant filed for the return of the child, under the Hague Convention (proceedings described under no. 1 below), while the wife filed for divorce and custody of the child with the Romanian courts (proceedings described under no. 2 below).
8.  On 22 November 2001, upon arrival in Israel, the father filed a request for the return of his child under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction (“the Hague Convention”). The request was submitted through the Israeli Ministry of Justice to the Romanian Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) which received it on 26 November 2001. The first applicant claimed that his wife was wrongfully retaining their daughter in Romania, without his consent. He also informed the Ministry that he had heard his wife had filed for divorce with the Romanian courts.
9.  On 27 November 2001, he asked the Ministry to apply for a stay in the divorce proceedings (see infra, §§ 12-17), for as long as the Hague proceedings were pending.
10.  On 11 January 2002, the Ministry, acting as the Central Authority for the purpose of the Hague Convention, instituted proceedings on behalf of the first applicant before the Bucharest District Court of the Sixth Precinct.
Based on the evidence adduced in the case, the district court found that the retention of the child in Romania was illegal, under Article 3 of the Hague Convention. However, it considered that, due to the political situation in Israel, which had worsened constantly since September 2000, there was a great risk that the return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm. Therefore, in a judgment of 15 April 2002, the district court rejected the request for the return of the child under Article 13 (b) of the Convention.
11.  On 17 December 2002, the Bucharest County Court allowed the appeal lodged by the Ministry and ordered the return of the child on the grounds that the retention was illegal and that the mother had not proved the grave risk that the child would be exposed to, if returned to her father.
12.  On 21 February 2003, the mother filed an appeal against this decision, allowed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in a final decision of 5 June 2003.
The court rejected the request for return on the ground that, since the date of the commencement of the Hague proceedings, another Romanian court had ruled on the divorce of the parents and had granted sole custody of the child to the mother, in a final decision of 18 September 2002.
It also considered that, bearing in mind the child’s age, namely two years and four months, her return would be against her interests in so far as she had effectively been living in Romania, with her mother, since she was 7 months old. Lastly, on the basis of witness testimony, the court found it proved that the father had consented initially to remain in Romania and to establish there the domicile for the whole family.
Therefore, the court found that the child had legally resided in Romania since 12 September 2001.
13.  On 10 October 2001, the first applicant’s wife filed for divorce, custody of their daughter and maintenance before the Bucharest District Court of the Sixth Precinct.
14.  The court found that, except for the first hearing, the first applicant had been correctly summoned at his address in Israel through the Ministry, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. The first applicant was not present at any of the four hearings held in the case.
15.  In the judgment of 18 September 2002, as rectified on 6 November 2002, the district court granted divorce on the grounds of fault by the first applicant, awarded the custody of the child to the mother and ordered the first applicant to pay monthly maintenance of 824 American dollars for his daughter.
16.  On 11 December 2002 the district court sent the judgment to the first applicant’s address.
17.  In the absence of appeals against it, the judgment became final.
18.  The first applicant informed the Court that he had not received any of the summonses sent to him or the judgment of 18 September 2002. It appears that he did not appeal at any point against the judgment.